October Newsletter: Cold Reads - Emails, Wendi Adelson, and an Interrogation
Do I believe what is being said?
Last month’s newsletter was written during a rainstorm; this month I’m writing on a balcony in the Canary Islands, watching the sun come up. I’ll take that.
Welcome to October’s roundup of all things related to spotting deception in someone’s words.
Doctor Why
I’m starting with a cold email I received. The names have been changed to protect the not-so-innocent.
“Hey Jack, I’m Dr. Surita Ali and I had to reach out after listening to several of your recent episodes– your insights on deception really resonated with me.
I was just on one of the top wellness podcasts Think and Be Well (414k followers) and saw an overwhelming number of listeners expressing gratitude in the comments for the insight.
I would love to help support bringing this awareness to your audience.
Sounds interesting?”
I chuckled at “just” after the claim of listening to several of my episodes. Surely no one who’s heard me talk about deception would use that word, would they?
Several other words jumped out. The doctor didn’t merely feel my recent episodes resonated; they REALLY felt it. And they didn’t have listeners expressing gratitude; it was an OVERWHELMING number.
I was also drawn to the fact that the doctor didn’t tell me the experience of having listeners express gratitude; she SAW it. That created distance for me.
I write this not to knock someone reaching out to grow their profile. I read this email and my gut feeling was “this isn’t genuine.” When I scanned the words, I saw those little tells. Trust your gut. It’s picking up those markers and sending you a valuable signal.
Neverland
Continuing my collection of examples of the word NEVER being used when it shouldn’t be, let’s hear from Wendi Adelson.
Georgia: Did you ever communicate with Katherine Magbanua at any time through WhatsApp?
Wendi: I never communicated with her at all
If you take that at face value, using the dictionary definition of “never,” then Wendi hadn’t at any time communicated with Katherine.
However, here’s a picture of Wendi with Katherine. Close, eh? Do you really think they have not at any time communicated? Even the logistics of that photo must have taken communication.
I’d bet there’s a personal definition at play. While “communication” might broadly mean talking with or interacting with another person, Wendi seems to use a tighter version, something like “using a device to call or message someone.”
The definition is unsaid, though. Using Wendi’s definition, we might even be getting a truthful statement. However, it’s another example of someone saying NEVER when it’s strictly not true.
Want more tips on spotting deception in someone’s words? Get my free download.
Want to go further? Sign up for the 30-Day Hour-a-Day course.
Getting serious
I was fascinated by a podcast I heard recently about a man who may have helped the 9/11 hijackers settle in the USA before the attacks.
Most interesting to me were recordings of interviews between the suspect and British police just days after the incident. The police wanted to know if the man in custody helped two of the hijackers get an apartment in San Diego.
Police: did you stand as guarantor for anyone past your San Diego address?
Suspect: for 152?
Police: whilst you were living at that address, did you stand as guarantor for a home else?
Suspect: financial?
Police: I find it hard to believe that you don’t remember undertaking this financial agreement. You don’t just say to a landlord I will guarantee this person if you don’t know who that person is.
Suspect: yeah it can be
Police: was it more than once?
Suspect: not sure.
Here’s where the tips and tricks I share have serious impact. Twice, instead of answering, the suspect responds with more questions, buying thinking time. Maybe he wants to learn how much the police know before committing to an answer. He doesn’t want to be caught in a lie. Or he needs time to craft a carefully worded answer to avoid suspicion.
At the end of the section, his answers “it can be” and “not sure” indicate that, in his head, it’s possible he stood as guarantor.
Hearing that, I can say with an extremely high degree of certainty the suspect did stand as a guarantor.
Later the police put their conclusions to the suspect:
Police: So there’s two conclusions here. One, that you’re a very unlucky man, and you have been involved in this unfortunate conspiracy that’s gone on. Or the other is that you’re a guilty man, and you are responsible for killing some seven thousand people.
Suspect: I’m… you know… honest people… honest man and I don’t want… and I have-also I care about my family. The truth will appear one day..
This is a classic non-denial. The suspect doesn’t deny anything that is put to him. He stresses how honest he is (red flag), says he’s a family man (résumé statement red flag), and that the truth will appear one day (red flag).
The suspect was let go; however, it’s clear from his words that a lot more was going on. He has always maintained his innocence but is currently the subject of a civil case brought by families of the victims.
Listen to the podcast here (three-episode series):
Unknown?
Spoiler alert: I’m going to talk about the Netflix documentary Unknown Number: The High School Catfish. If you want to watch it and don’t know who “did it,” skip to the next section.
The person who was caught sending the abusive text messages claimed they didn’t send the first lot of messages. They got involved later, they say, to work out who was sending them. Here’s what they say:
So the first text messages started around Halloween
Q: And did you send those text messages?
No, those ones I did not
It wasn’t until way later um so the messages kind of stopped for a little bit then they picked back up. In my mind I’m like how long do we let this go on, what do I do as a parent?
Honestly, the best way would have been to stop it by shutting her cellphone down right? But then I was like well why should she have to do that you know why should I have to get her a new cellphone like because of someone else’s actions right?
I really wanted to get to the bottom of who it was right? And that’s when I started sending the text messages to Lauren and Owen.
Are they being truthful? I’m not so sure. They do directly say “no” when asked, but it’s weakened with a formal, non-contracted “I did not.”
There’s no anger directed at the person who sent the first messages, and that person is mentioned only once. The rest of the time the messages have agency of their own: “the messages stopped,” “how long do we let this go on.”
I also noted the way they punctuate with “right.” They make a point, then drive it home with “right,” seeking agreement and implying strength and logic. The points made with a “right” are:
Could have stopped it by shutting down the phone
Why should I get a new phone because of someone else’s actions
Wanted to get to the bottom of it
The first two explain the logical action but justify why it wasn’t taken, persuading us about inaction. The third persuades us of the alleged reason for sending messages. In other words, they’re selling their actions.
So, to me, this person sent all the messages to the kids.
Book club
I’ve been reading the works of Steven Pinker recently. It’s been fascinating to learn formally how complex language is and how our brains intuitively work with it.
The sheer number of rules for how we talk and write in English that I know but didn’t know I know is striking.
For example, I can fill the jug with water, and I can pour water into the jug. I can say “the jug is filled with water,” but I can’t say “the jug is poured with water.”
Or the multiple meanings of simple sentences like “time flies like an arrow.” I think six different meanings can come from those five words.
If you’re fascinated by the psychology of language and word use, I’d recommend The Language Instinct or The Stuff of Thought.
Next month, I’ll be sharing something very special that I’ve been working on with someone else. It’ll be fun!
Jack